So says Eric J. Sinrod, a California attorney who criticizes the courts for taking e-discovery requirements to extreme lengths.

I have found the best course is to find out what sort of electronic data exists, and early–at the 26(f) meeting with opposing counsel, if possible. With that knowledge, I can make an intelligent decision as to whether I actually need things like meta data, or whether printouts of the electronic data will satisfy my needs.

But this will not handle every situation, of course, and I can think of many situations in which discovery costs could skyrocket due to e-discovery requirements.

Have you run into e-discovery issues? How have you handled them?

Perspective: The new e-discovery burden | CNet


  1. David Smith says:

    It is easy to point out flaws. The interesting thing is whta do you suggest instead? It seems silly to just say it is broken and sucks.


  2. Sam Glover says:

    I am not the author of the article, and I have not run into any problems with the current system, so I have nothing to suggest.

    But what keeps me up at night worrying about costs is the potential need to hire a third-party forensics expert. I think the proliferation of third-party forensics experts is absurd. A hard drive is just a filing cabinet, but nobody hires an expert to tell them what is in a filing cabinet.

    Neither should attorneys have to hire a computer forensics expert just to make a copy of a hard drive or to sort through the data on that drive.

Leave a Reply